|
Senses
Nov 21, 2013 15:07:20 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 21, 2013 15:07:20 GMT -5
Greetings.. No.. you are assuming that one observation is superior to another, that the quantum structure of the chair is superior to the experience of its presence and function.. i am saying, that the chair is a totality, not a hierarchy of assigned values.. it is BOTH a cloud of energy behaving like a chair, AND a chair made of a cloud of energy.. When does the pile of parts on scattered on the garage floor become a bicycle? when it's a bicycle it serves a purpose and function of transportation with greater efficiency than walking, and.. when it's scattered parts it doesn't function as a bicycle.. even though you can see the parts of the bicycle plainly, you still refer to the assembled parts as a 'bicycle', rather than spokes, sprockets ,chain, frame, rims, circular rubber thingies, etc.. nothing about the reality of the bicycle changes when it is described as parts, or when the parts are described as clouds of energy, or when we get on the 'thingy' and ride away.. Reality is what's actually happening, the cloud of energy is happening, the table/chair is happening, the bicycle is happening, and they are all united in the experience of existing.. the cloud of energy is no less of an appearance than the table or chair, and it's all actually happening.. the contention between appearances, clouds of energy or form/function, is mind-play.. Be well.. Okay. I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘totality’ as in the chair is a totality. It seems like what you are saying is that a chair is its function, a chair is what it is conventionally -- an object that can be sat on, usually with some legs and a flat thing and a back -- a chair is also an ‘energy cloud’ (not sure what that means really but I’ll just assume you’re pointing to subatomic structure and em fields and strong and weak nuclear forces etc). A chair could also be a microscopic speck if looked at from miles away, right? So none of these different aspects of chair take precedence. So this conversation is about what is Reality. "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." So in that definition “as they actually exist” is what you mean by totality? A totality is all the different possible experiences of that particular thing. And so the clause “rather than as they may appear or might be imagined” is not included in the totality? I’m thinking right now of your bicycle example. There’s a garage with a parts scattered about. PersonA, who lives there, thinks of that assemblage as his bike, just not put together at the moment. It has served him well for many years and it comes with all sorts of memories and feelings. PersonB, a visitor, walks into the garage and sees the mechanical mess and recognizes some pieces as bike parts and doesn’t recognize others. PersonB guesses that this is a mess of bike parts but is not sure. PersonC, also a visitor, walks in and knows nothing of bikes. They just see a scattering of metal parts and doesn’t know if they go together or what. Maybe an inventor lives here? PersonD, a sculptor, walks in and sees many awesome possibilities for creating her latest work. PersonE, a spouse of the bike owner, is annoyed. This pile of crap is taking up the whole place and it looks bad for our visitors. PersonF, a child, quickly moves things around and manages to make a horse-riding stable and track with the parts for imaginary play. PersonG, a bike expert, sees several parts that look good enough to keep but the rest should be junked. PersonH, a thief, takes the rear sprocket. Persons A-H all have different observations. The visual stimuli is very similar but the functions are different. Are you saying that the Reality of the situation is that there are many different functions and experiences and that this is the totality? So maybe reality should be redefined as "Reality is the totality of things as they actually exist, including all possible observations and functions, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." The tricky part here is the ‘appear’ part in the last clause. One persons bike seat may look like a deer skull to another, perhaps. Are both appearances legitimate? I can help but think that you noticed that the bike hypo is the car koan in a different form.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 21, 2013 15:28:23 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 21, 2013 15:28:23 GMT -5
from the article: Most people can easily tell the difference between reality and fantasy. We know that characters in novels and movies are fictitious, and we also understand that historical figures - even if we’ve never met them personally - were real people.What is real? A loose definition that seems true enough is .. "that which never changes" Was JFK real? I've seen video evidence that that man existed, and video of his brains getting blown out. So, JFK popped into existence, lingered for a while, then was snuffed out like the flame on a candle. So the man was real, but is that what's Real? Obviously JFK changed....... This points up the inherent problem with the word "reality" in the context of discussions about self-inquiry and self-realization. Everything you've described there is 2nd hand information, so the reality that we share when we say "yah, JFK was real (** eyeroll **)", is a consensus reality. Consensus reality is extremely useful and it's also very valuable. Without it, there wouldn't be any sciences. When I pay for some 2x4's at the lumber yard I don't complain to the clerk about payin' for objects merely appearing to us based on our conditioning ... course if I did and he was down and dope he could retort the same about the bills I give'em. When I speak to a new client on the phone I don't play any cute Zenny word games based on identity suggesting he's not really a stranger. But when it comes to looking at what is with clarity and a still mind, consensus reality, at some point, can become a hindrance. A distraction. Historically speaking, "reality" references one complex of ideas and "spirituality" another, and in the modern context, the first complex is usually used as a tool to ridicule and hold in contempt the 2nd. At some point along the way, the utility of either complex of ideas falls away with regard to self-inquiry and self-realization. The idea that ideas are a construct of the mind might be associated with one spiritual complex or another, but it need not be.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 21, 2013 15:53:50 GMT -5
Post by quinn on Nov 21, 2013 15:53:50 GMT -5
I called "that which never changes" a concept or belief because if it as a concept is believed to be true it is a belief. It's a belief because there is no way to know if something never changes. It's an idea only (unless we're talking omnicient superpowers, which I don't have much to say about). It's not a problem, just a belief. Has your existence changed? IOW, have you always been who you are? Apart from your body and your thoughts/preferences/ideas - just you. Not that I know if that means anything, but it seems like some sort of drop-off place. And it doesn't change.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 21, 2013 21:59:41 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. No.. you are assuming that one observation is superior to another, that the quantum structure of the chair is superior to the experience of its presence and function.. i am saying, that the chair is a totality, not a hierarchy of assigned values.. it is BOTH a cloud of energy behaving like a chair, AND a chair made of a cloud of energy.. When does the pile of parts on scattered on the garage floor become a bicycle? when it's a bicycle it serves a purpose and function of transportation with greater efficiency than walking, and.. when it's scattered parts it doesn't function as a bicycle.. even though you can see the parts of the bicycle plainly, you still refer to the assembled parts as a 'bicycle', rather than spokes, sprockets ,chain, frame, rims, circular rubber thingies, etc.. nothing about the reality of the bicycle changes when it is described as parts, or when the parts are described as clouds of energy, or when we get on the 'thingy' and ride away.. Reality is what's actually happening, the cloud of energy is happening, the table/chair is happening, the bicycle is happening, and they are all united in the experience of existing.. the cloud of energy is no less of an appearance than the table or chair, and it's all actually happening.. the contention between appearances, clouds of energy or form/function, is mind-play.. Be well.. Okay. I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘totality’ as in the chair is a totality. It seems like what you are saying is that a chair is its function, a chair is what it is conventionally -- an object that can be sat on, usually with some legs and a flat thing and a back -- a chair is also an ‘energy cloud’ (not sure what that means really but I’ll just assume you’re pointing to subatomic structure and em fields and strong and weak nuclear forces etc). A chair could also be a microscopic speck if looked at from miles away, right? So none of these different aspects of chair take precedence. So this conversation is about what is Reality. "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." So in that definition “as they actually exist” is what you mean by totality? A totality is all the different possible experiences of that particular thing. And so the clause “rather than as they may appear or might be imagined” is not included in the totality? I’m thinking right now of your bicycle example. There’s a garage with a parts scattered about. PersonA, who lives there, thinks of that assemblage as his bike, just not put together at the moment. It has served him well for many years and it comes with all sorts of memories and feelings. PersonB, a visitor, walks into the garage and sees the mechanical mess and recognizes some pieces as bike parts and doesn’t recognize others. PersonB guesses that this is a mess of bike parts but is not sure. PersonC, also a visitor, walks in and knows nothing of bikes. They just see a scattering of metal parts and doesn’t know if they go together or what. Maybe an inventor lives here? PersonD, a sculptor, walks in and sees many awesome possibilities for creating her latest work. PersonE, a spouse of the bike owner, is annoyed. This pile of crap is taking up the whole place and it looks bad for our visitors. PersonF, a child, quickly moves things around and manages to make a horse-riding stable and track with the parts for imaginary play. PersonG, a bike expert, sees several parts that look good enough to keep but the rest should be junked. PersonH, a thief, takes the rear sprocket. Persons A-H all have different observations. The visual stimuli is very similar but the functions are different. Are you saying that the Reality of the situation is that there are many different functions and experiences and that this is the totality? So maybe reality should be redefined as "Reality is the totality of things as they actually exist, including all possible observations and functions, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." The tricky part here is the ‘appear’ part in the last clause. One persons bike seat may look like a deer skull to another, perhaps. Are both appearances legitimate? Hi Max: I'm not interested in 'redefining' reality.. if i say to you, 'would you go into the other room, get a chair, and bring it back into this room?', i suspect that you would understand the request, and it would be unlikely that you would bring back a 'table', it is likely that you would bring back a chair or a suitable substitute.. that's the reality of understanding what a 'chair' is, and what its function is.. there is a difference between "all possible observations and functions", and those observations and function and observations that 'actually work' (reality).. So.. when you say, "Whereas a chair appears to have four legs, made of wood, etc. we know that this is just an appearance", i don't understand why you say it's "just an appearance".. the 'chair' is still there even after you observe what 'appears' to be its substance, but.. that 'substance' has been revised from 'grains of wood', to atoms, to sub-atomic particles, to energy, to consciousness, to the next version of scientific or philosophical evolution, and yet the 'chair' remains consistently observable and experiencable as a 'chair'.. The 'chair' actually exists as a 'chair', it is widely understood to function as its design and purpose intended, it 'works' as a chair.. the bicycle seat is widely understood to function as its design and purpose intended, but not as a deer's skull.. while it might be accurate to say the bicycle seat and the deer's skull are both 'appearances', the reality is revealed by what actually works.. There seems to be a trend among some spiritual/philosophical groups to discard common-sense in favor of a model built on misapplied logic applied to imagined theories that are marketed by clever mind/word-games.. by any definition, all that you know and/or believe and/or realize is an 'appearance', as whatever it 'is' it 'appears to' you.. so, we sort-out what is 'real' from the imagined, the dreamed, the deceptions, the misconceptions, and we discover what actually works in the reality of existence.. In the 'vanishing side of the coin' experiment, where 'direct experience' (sight, in the argued case) cannot confirm the unseen side and so the unseen side is presumed not to exist.. the same misapplied logic applies to the 'chair'/appearance analogy.. when you sit down to Thanksgiving Dinner, or any seated event, it is likely that your attention will divert from the 'chair' and you will forget that there is a chair keeping you from dropping to the ground, but the function of the chair continues to function, regardless of the label or the experiencer's awareness of it.. no, the function is not the 'label', but the 'label' is known by its consistent and reliable function, reality is simple and common-sense is brilliant.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 21, 2013 23:39:43 GMT -5
Post by earnest on Nov 21, 2013 23:39:43 GMT -5
Greetings.. Okay. I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘totality’ as in the chair is a totality. It seems like what you are saying is that a chair is its function, a chair is what it is conventionally -- an object that can be sat on, usually with some legs and a flat thing and a back -- a chair is also an ‘energy cloud’ (not sure what that means really but I’ll just assume you’re pointing to subatomic structure and em fields and strong and weak nuclear forces etc). A chair could also be a microscopic speck if looked at from miles away, right? So none of these different aspects of chair take precedence. So this conversation is about what is Reality. "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." So in that definition “as they actually exist” is what you mean by totality? A totality is all the different possible experiences of that particular thing. And so the clause “rather than as they may appear or might be imagined” is not included in the totality? I’m thinking right now of your bicycle example. There’s a garage with a parts scattered about. PersonA, who lives there, thinks of that assemblage as his bike, just not put together at the moment. It has served him well for many years and it comes with all sorts of memories and feelings. PersonB, a visitor, walks into the garage and sees the mechanical mess and recognizes some pieces as bike parts and doesn’t recognize others. PersonB guesses that this is a mess of bike parts but is not sure. PersonC, also a visitor, walks in and knows nothing of bikes. They just see a scattering of metal parts and doesn’t know if they go together or what. Maybe an inventor lives here? PersonD, a sculptor, walks in and sees many awesome possibilities for creating her latest work. PersonE, a spouse of the bike owner, is annoyed. This pile of crap is taking up the whole place and it looks bad for our visitors. PersonF, a child, quickly moves things around and manages to make a horse-riding stable and track with the parts for imaginary play. PersonG, a bike expert, sees several parts that look good enough to keep but the rest should be junked. PersonH, a thief, takes the rear sprocket. Persons A-H all have different observations. The visual stimuli is very similar but the functions are different. Are you saying that the Reality of the situation is that there are many different functions and experiences and that this is the totality? So maybe reality should be redefined as "Reality is the totality of things as they actually exist, including all possible observations and functions, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." The tricky part here is the ‘appear’ part in the last clause. One persons bike seat may look like a deer skull to another, perhaps. Are both appearances legitimate? Hi Max: I'm not interested in 'redefining' reality.. if i say to you, 'would you go into the other room, get a chair, and bring it back into this room?', i suspect that you would understand the request, and it would be unlikely that you would bring back a 'table', it is likely that you would bring back a chair or a suitable substitute.. that's the reality of understanding what a 'chair' is, and what its function is.. there is a difference between "all possible observations and functions", and those observations and function and observations that 'actually work' (reality).. So.. when you say, "Whereas a chair appears to have four legs, made of wood, etc. we know that this is just an appearance", i don't understand why you say it's "just an appearance".. the 'chair' is still there even after you observe what 'appears' to be its substance, but.. that 'substance' has been revised from 'grains of wood', to atoms, to sub-atomic particles, to energy, to consciousness, to the next version of scientific or philosophical evolution, and yet the 'chair' remains consistently observable and experiencable as a 'chair'.. The 'chair' actually exists as a 'chair', it is widely understood to function as its design and purpose intended, it 'works' as a chair.. the bicycle seat is widely understood to function as its design and purpose intended, but not as a deer's skull.. while it might be accurate to say the bicycle seat and the deer's skull are both 'appearances', the reality is revealed by what actually works.. There seems to be a trend among some spiritual/philosophical groups to discard common-sense in favor of a model built on misapplied logic applied to imagined theories that are marketed by clever mind/word-games.. by any definition, all that you know and/or believe and/or realize is an 'appearance', as whatever it 'is' it 'appears to' you.. so, we sort-out what is 'real' from the imagined, the dreamed, the deceptions, the misconceptions, and we discover what actually works in the reality of existence.. In the 'vanishing side of the coin' experiment, where 'direct experience' (sight, in the argued case) cannot confirm the unseen side and so the unseen side is presumed not to exist.. the same misapplied logic applies to the 'chair'/appearance analogy.. when you sit down to Thanksgiving Dinner, or any seated event, it is likely that your attention will divert from the 'chair' and you will forget that there is a chair keeping you from dropping to the ground, but the function of the chair continues to function, regardless of the label or the experiencer's awareness of it.. no, the function is not the 'label', but the 'label' is known by its consistent and reliable function, reality is simple and common-sense is brilliant.. Be well.. ahem,.. no sense can confirm the existence of the other side of the coin. You have to go back to memories, beliefs etc. There is no jump to presuming that the other side doesn't exist. Same as the Headless thing that Douglas Harding speaks of. Misapplied logic?? no logic there at all. (heh heh )
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 21, 2013 23:56:39 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 21, 2013 23:56:39 GMT -5
uncanny. John, are you watching the convos here? did'ja' have any one perticuler in mind??
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 22, 2013 6:53:10 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 22, 2013 6:53:10 GMT -5
Greetings.. Hi Max: I'm not interested in 'redefining' reality.. if i say to you, 'would you go into the other room, get a chair, and bring it back into this room?', i suspect that you would understand the request, and it would be unlikely that you would bring back a 'table', it is likely that you would bring back a chair or a suitable substitute.. that's the reality of understanding what a 'chair' is, and what its function is.. there is a difference between "all possible observations and functions", and those observations and function and observations that 'actually work' (reality).. So.. when you say, "Whereas a chair appears to have four legs, made of wood, etc. we know that this is just an appearance", i don't understand why you say it's "just an appearance".. the 'chair' is still there even after you observe what 'appears' to be its substance, but.. that 'substance' has been revised from 'grains of wood', to atoms, to sub-atomic particles, to energy, to consciousness, to the next version of scientific or philosophical evolution, and yet the 'chair' remains consistently observable and experiencable as a 'chair'.. The 'chair' actually exists as a 'chair', it is widely understood to function as its design and purpose intended, it 'works' as a chair.. the bicycle seat is widely understood to function as its design and purpose intended, but not as a deer's skull.. while it might be accurate to say the bicycle seat and the deer's skull are both 'appearances', the reality is revealed by what actually works.. There seems to be a trend among some spiritual/philosophical groups to discard common-sense in favor of a model built on misapplied logic applied to imagined theories that are marketed by clever mind/word-games.. by any definition, all that you know and/or believe and/or realize is an 'appearance', as whatever it 'is' it 'appears to' you.. so, we sort-out what is 'real' from the imagined, the dreamed, the deceptions, the misconceptions, and we discover what actually works in the reality of existence.. In the 'vanishing side of the coin' experiment, where 'direct experience' (sight, in the argued case) cannot confirm the unseen side and so the unseen side is presumed not to exist.. the same misapplied logic applies to the 'chair'/appearance analogy.. when you sit down to Thanksgiving Dinner, or any seated event, it is likely that your attention will divert from the 'chair' and you will forget that there is a chair keeping you from dropping to the ground, but the function of the chair continues to function, regardless of the label or the experiencer's awareness of it.. no, the function is not the 'label', but the 'label' is known by its consistent and reliable function, reality is simple and common-sense is brilliant.. Be well.. ahem,.. no sense can confirm the existence of the other side of the coin. You have to go back to memories, beliefs etc. There is no jump to presuming that the other side doesn't exist. Same as the Headless thing that Douglas Harding speaks of. Misapplied logic?? no logic there at all. (heh heh ) So it is, that the 'spiritual' folks become so enamored with their creative imaginations that they tell each other 'stories' about their imagined mind-scapes and compete for ways to market believability.. the story becomes more important than the reality.. the story exists only as a mind's imagining, reality is what's actually happening.. the happening continues regardless of which 'story' the imaginer choose to think is true.. let the 'coin' go, let the story go, get out of your 'head' and into Life.. The opening scene from the Andy Griffith show presents an excellent image of simplicity, where Andy and Opie are strolling along a country path with fishing poles represents 'reality', the scene is absent of head-games.. Andy and Opie present a perspective where they are fully joyously present in what's actually happening.. that level of actual simplicity, compared to the mind-play of imagined 'Douglas Harding Headless things', is pristine.. have you ever looked-up into the night sky and simply been in awe, without imagining stuff.. it is that 'awe' without the imagined stuff, that is 'real'.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 22, 2013 9:06:57 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2013 9:06:57 GMT -5
Greetings.. Okay. I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘totality’ as in the chair is a totality. It seems like what you are saying is that a chair is its function, a chair is what it is conventionally -- an object that can be sat on, usually with some legs and a flat thing and a back -- a chair is also an ‘energy cloud’ (not sure what that means really but I’ll just assume you’re pointing to subatomic structure and em fields and strong and weak nuclear forces etc). A chair could also be a microscopic speck if looked at from miles away, right? So none of these different aspects of chair take precedence. So this conversation is about what is Reality. "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." So in that definition “as they actually exist” is what you mean by totality? A totality is all the different possible experiences of that particular thing. And so the clause “rather than as they may appear or might be imagined” is not included in the totality? I’m thinking right now of your bicycle example. There’s a garage with a parts scattered about. PersonA, who lives there, thinks of that assemblage as his bike, just not put together at the moment. It has served him well for many years and it comes with all sorts of memories and feelings. PersonB, a visitor, walks into the garage and sees the mechanical mess and recognizes some pieces as bike parts and doesn’t recognize others. PersonB guesses that this is a mess of bike parts but is not sure. PersonC, also a visitor, walks in and knows nothing of bikes. They just see a scattering of metal parts and doesn’t know if they go together or what. Maybe an inventor lives here? PersonD, a sculptor, walks in and sees many awesome possibilities for creating her latest work. PersonE, a spouse of the bike owner, is annoyed. This pile of crap is taking up the whole place and it looks bad for our visitors. PersonF, a child, quickly moves things around and manages to make a horse-riding stable and track with the parts for imaginary play. PersonG, a bike expert, sees several parts that look good enough to keep but the rest should be junked. PersonH, a thief, takes the rear sprocket. Persons A-H all have different observations. The visual stimuli is very similar but the functions are different. Are you saying that the Reality of the situation is that there are many different functions and experiences and that this is the totality? So maybe reality should be redefined as "Reality is the totality of things as they actually exist, including all possible observations and functions, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." The tricky part here is the ‘appear’ part in the last clause. One persons bike seat may look like a deer skull to another, perhaps. Are both appearances legitimate? Hi Max: I'm not interested in 'redefining' reality.. But here's how you opened our conversation: Great! So, rather than 'the' definition of reality, i'm more inclined to accept the Wiki condensed version, as 'a' definition, leaving open the opportunity for revisions as we explore that definition's relationship with 'isness'.. I think that's where my misunderstanding was. Not a big deal. When you say this: -- the difference between thinking and being comes to mind. It's like maybe someone ponders out loud "what is reality?" and someone else just *pulls up a chair* or *takes a swig of coffee*. The point is that "reality" and the attempt to define it just brings stirs up a hot mess of concepts. As I understand what you say, questioning reality is just mind play. There's nothing wrong with that per se. It's play. I see no contradiction in what you and I are saying. There's no problem calling something 'just an appearance.' It's factually true and not very profound. And it has no impact, as you point out, on being...*pulls up a chair*. Well see here's where we may differ. Stating that "the 'chair' actually exists as a 'chair'" and basing that statement on an argument of the consistency of an object's function or whatever, is a philosophical argument. If you want to go that route, there's lots of philosophizing to be done. I'm mildly interested but time poor. Lots of text has been spilled on that stuff, dissertations collecting dust. Your still mind thing is much more interesting. *pulls up a chair* is that. The philosophizing and making statements is a different activity. [soapbox]"Common sense" is a term that has different meanings to different people. It's used all the time by politicians, for example. Usually it means something like "I'm right and they're wrong and it's so obvious that I don't need to say anything more about it." Studies have been done and shown that CS has no bearing whatsoever on reality (!). It's just a label used by folks to express a feeling of righteousness. Some folks think of it as like Ye Old Farmer's Almanac. Oh yes the grasshoppers chirped early this Summer so that means we'll have an especially harsh Winter. Or maybe it is a straight up reference to the 5 senses, which every one can access. Or maybe it's meant as an intuitive feeling akin to BS detection, a nagging sense that something ain't right. [/soapbox] How are you using the term? Pulling up a chair to T-giving dinner is a different kettle of fish than pondering the thought experiment of the coin. The latter is a philosophical exercise, the former is an action performed by the body to get closer to food.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 22, 2013 9:16:45 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2013 9:16:45 GMT -5
I called "that which never changes" a concept or belief because if it as a concept is believed to be true it is a belief. It's a belief because there is no way to know if something never changes. It's an idea only (unless we're talking omnicient superpowers, which I don't have much to say about). It's not a problem, just a belief. Has your existence changed? IOW, have you always been who you are? Apart from your body and your thoughts/preferences/ideas - just you. Not that I know if that means anything, but it seems like some sort of drop-off place. And it doesn't change. I think what you are talking about is that same thing that is referred to in "what looks out of these eyes now is the same as what looked out of these eyes as a 3 year old." I get that. The unchanging thing, however, implies that when these eyes have long departed there will still be that something that was looking out of the eyes that once existed. Know what I mean? Death. How the heck would I know? Also, I can't say that what is looking out of these eyes now was around before age zero. No memory to work with there. Some people do make claims about past lives and such, but I don't frankly believe it. Seems like wishful thinking to me. But I agree that what you are talking about appears to have no change. The quality of it lacks any kind of change, seems completely untouched.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 22, 2013 9:37:58 GMT -5
Post by quinn on Nov 22, 2013 9:37:58 GMT -5
Has your existence changed? IOW, have you always been who you are? Apart from your body and your thoughts/preferences/ideas - just you. Not that I know if that means anything, but it seems like some sort of drop-off place. And it doesn't change. I think what you are talking about is that same thing that is referred to in "what looks out of these eyes now is the same as what looked out of these eyes as a 3 year old." I get that. The unchanging thing, however, implies that when these eyes have long departed there will still be that something that was looking out of the eyes that once existed. Know what I mean? Death. How the heck would I know? Also, I can't say that what is looking out of these eyes now was around before age zero. No memory to work with there. Some people do make claims about past lives and such, but I don't frankly believe it. Seems like wishful thinking to me. But I agree that what you are talking about appears to have no change. The quality of it lacks any kind of change, seems completely untouched. Yes. I agree with all of that. What I can maybe quibble with is that what happens before and after death is irrelevant. That the implication you're talking about has no bearing on life right now. For me, that's a mystery and any attempt to 'solve' that mystery is banging my head against a wall. What I see as a diversionary tactic of mind. What I meant by drop-off point is just a place to turn attention to. What that unchanging-ness is after death is splitting attention to the past or future. I know this all doesn't sound very spiritual. Haha - gotta go. Late for meditation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 22, 2013 10:09:27 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2013 10:09:27 GMT -5
I think what you are talking about is that same thing that is referred to in "what looks out of these eyes now is the same as what looked out of these eyes as a 3 year old." I get that. The unchanging thing, however, implies that when these eyes have long departed there will still be that something that was looking out of the eyes that once existed. Know what I mean? Death. How the heck would I know? Also, I can't say that what is looking out of these eyes now was around before age zero. No memory to work with there. Some people do make claims about past lives and such, but I don't frankly believe it. Seems like wishful thinking to me. But I agree that what you are talking about appears to have no change. The quality of it lacks any kind of change, seems completely untouched. Yes. I agree with all of that. What I can maybe quibble with is that what happens before and after death is irrelevant. That the implication you're talking about has no bearing on life right now. For me, that's a mystery and any attempt to 'solve' that mystery is banging my head against a wall. What I see as a diversionary tactic of mind. What I meant by drop-off point is just a place to turn attention to. What that unchanging-ness is after death is splitting attention to the past or future. I know this all doesn't sound very spiritual. Haha - gotta go. Late for meditation. No I think that is as spiritual as I'm gonna get, unless St. Gabe comes down and grabs me by the throat. It's a good reminder. In the spirit of poking holes in beliefs, I split hairs on the meaning of unchanging. But you are absolutely right that it perhaps misses the dropping off point by a mile or so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 22, 2013 10:21:06 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2013 10:21:06 GMT -5
uncanny. John, are you watching the convos here? did'ja' have any one perticuler in mind?? "serious consideration is needed to ensure that one is not falling into some conceptual notion of reality again" That last one just reverberates on and on. It's a puzzler though: "serious consideration." Do not mistake understanding for realization, do not mistake realization for liberation... If anything survives it is doubt. At some point doubt is applied to absolute certainty. Maybe that's when the laugh happens.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 22, 2013 17:51:52 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 22, 2013 17:51:52 GMT -5
I vote: unreal doesn't exist. is imagination only that clinging to words thoughts concepts beliefs is like getting sucked into a black hole that the momentum is so so strong not even light can escape... Crap! unreal doesn't exist either! FFS! We're making up concepts. God hasn't sent us a stone tablet defining what's real, so we have to do that. The plan of defining what's real by figuring out what's not real is going to fail 'by definition'. Real can be whatever you decide it is, but you hafta decide. It's likely to be context dependent.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 22, 2013 17:53:46 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 22, 2013 17:53:46 GMT -5
Crap! unreal doesn't exist either! FFS! just to clarify: I vote: real exists FFS Then so does unreal. They define each other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 22, 2013 20:23:02 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2013 20:23:02 GMT -5
just to clarify: I vote: real exists FFS Then so does unreal. They define each other. that's interesting
|
|